Mayorgate

Pages

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

As
publisher and author of Mayorgate I try to avoid expressing my
opinions during elections. Yet this is a time I believe no Canadian
can or should stay silent or ambivalent. This is not an election
based simply on party politics or party loyalty and for that reason I
could not stay silent.

At
the center of this election Canadians face a question they had never
had to deal with. We have to decide whether a Prime Minister, the
leader of this country who represents us all, should be permitted to
run this country for another four years after facing allegations of
obstructing justice. True these are allegations and the charge has
not been proven, but then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has ensured
that no real investigation can be conducted by authorities. It is
possible Justin Trudeau himself has not personally interfered with
anyone on a face-to-face basis, but he has a whole team of willing
individuals who would play the proverbial middle man. If there was
any dignity in this situation the PM would step down and allow a
full, legal and independent investigation, but that as we all know
will never happen.

Obstruction
of justice is a felony under section 139(1) of the Criminal Code of
Canada. The Criminal Code states, “Everyone who willfully attempts
in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in
a judicial proceeding: a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a
surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or b) where he is
a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of
indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person
who is released or is to be released from custody, is guilty of c) an
indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years.”

This
section continues with a more general interpretation of obstruction
of justice:

2)
“Every one who willfully attempts in any manner than a manner
described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course
of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment not exceeding ten years.”

Can
anyone reading these words from the Criminal Code of Canada
describing what obstruction of justice is not comprehend the
seriousness of the allegations made against the Prime Minister of
Canada? Subsection 1 of section 139 of the Criminal Code uses the
word “indemnify,” and Wikipedia describes this as, “The duty to
indemnify is usually, but not always, coextensive with the
contractual duty to hold harmless or save harmless.”

The
storm began with the allegation of political interference with the
justice system by the then Minister of Justice and Attorney General
Judy Wilson-Raybould. The Minister of Justice had claimed that Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau and the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) had
attempted to interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation against
a Quebec based construction company, SNC-Lavalin.

In
February 2015 charges had been laid against SNC-Lavalin and two of
its subsidiaries, SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc and SNC-Lavalin
International Inc. Each of the firms was charged with one count of
fraud and one count of corruption alleging that SNC-Lavalin paid out
some $48 million Canadian dollars in bribes in Libya between 2001 and
2011. If SNC-Lavalin was found guilty and convicted they would be
banned from bidding on federal government contracts for ten years.
The result of such a ban would drive SNC-Lavalin into bankruptcy some
have claimed, providing the opening on the whole issue of saving
jobs.

SNC-Lavalin
employs around 9000 people in Canada. The company's head office in
Montreal has 700 of them, there are about 3400 in Quebec, 3000 in
Ontario and about 1000 in British Columbia. It's important to note
that not all of these employees work on federal contracts. According
to Andrew Macklin, managing editor of ReNew Canada, a trade magazine
focusing on public sector infrastructure, “While some of the
employees at headquarters and other back-office functions might be
lost, the bulk of the company's Canadian employees and subcontractors
are working on infrastructure projects that still need to be done, no
matter which company's working on them.” It was Gerald Butts, Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau's former Chief of Staff who made this claim
of a job loss of 9000 in Canada during testimony to a House of
Commons committee investigating the allegations of pressure from the
PMO on the attorney general.

Industry
experts don't seem to see that scenario as being accurate. Though
another consideration raises more alarming questions relating to
SNC-Lavalin and the art of the political contribution. The
Commissioner of Elections investigation came to an abrupt end when 76
year-old Normand Morin a former vice-president with SNC-Lavalin
pleaded guilty to two charges of contravening Canada's election
financing rules. Another three charges were dropped by the public
prosecution. SCN-Lavalin managed to illegally funnel more than
$116,000 to federal political parties. The federal Liberal Party of
Canada filled their hat with over $83,000 and other Liberal ridings
another $13,500, that's a total of $96,000 with the Conservative
Party picking up around $8,000. Not too hard to see where
SNC-Lavalin's favours leaned, yet did Gerald Butts bring that up
during his testimony to the House of Commons committee?

First
Prime Minister Trudeau rid himself of his former attorney general
Jody Wilson-Raybould, even had her expelled from the party. Then 76
year-old Normand Morin helped to shut down the investigation into the
political contribution scam by pleading guilty and getting a $2,000
fine. Finally, Trudeau had to deal with Mario Dion the federal Ethics
Commissioner. Mr. Dion found that Justin Trudeau had tried to
influence the former attorney general in the SNC-Lavalin criminal
case and “improperly further the interests of SNC-Lavalin.” There
is that word from section 139(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada
“indemnify.” Still, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sees no reason
why he should apologise for any of this.

We
here in Canada listen to all the news about President Donald Trump.
As Canadians we say that such blatant corruption and disrespect for
the law cannot happen here. Yet what is the difference? Both Donald
Trump and Justin Trudeau are the elected leaders of their respective
countries. Both have committed acts that betray ethics and the
dignity of the office they hold. Trudeau's actions appear to border
on the criminal. Both have done everything possible to ensure that
full proper investigations could not happen. The difference is that
although senior Republicans back and cover-up for Trump, with the
impeachment inquiry, more Republican voices are raised against
Trump's actions.

Although
Donald Trump is seeing more of his Republicans joining the call for
impeachment here in Canada there has only been one Liberal who voiced
their opinion in opposition to Justin Trudeau. The Honourable Jane
Philpott resigned her position as President of the Treasury Board on
March 4th 2019. On April 2nd 2019 both Jane
Philpott and Judy-Wilson Raybould were expelled from the Liberal
Caucus. Philpott's reason for resigning was that she believed her
constituents wanted her to uphold the highest ethical standard and
that she had no confidence in the prime minister's handling of the
SNC-Lavalin affair. No other Liberal MP or member of the PMO has come
forward to express their opinion other than like Chris Bittle stand
behind the Prime Minister and nod their head. Staying in power is the
only motivation that Liberals care for, they seem to care little for
law or dignity.

These
same individuals are asking Canadians to trust them, to vote for
them. When Trudeau came to the Niagara area he faced questions,
handed out speeches, but what stands out is the arrogance of this
Prime Minister. During his visit, he was asked questions relating to
his statement that he takes responsibility. The Prime Minister was
asked for clarification in particular as the Ethics Commissioner had
released his report. Trudeau said that “What we did over the past
year wasn't good enough, but at the same time I can't apologise.”
He went on that “taking responsibility” means making sure things
of the past don't happen again and that “this mistake never happens
again.” Obstruction of justice is simply a mistake to Justin
Trudeau.

Because
I live here in St. Catharines what I found most disturbing was to
watch Chris Bittle, the Liberal Member of Parliament for St.
Catharines standing behind Trudeau during this categorisation of
obstruction of justice as “this mistake.” Chris Bittle is a
lawyer, and as a lawyer would be very aware what section 139(1) of
the Criminal Code describes. Bittle would also be very aware as a
lawyer that the actions alleged against Prime Minster Trudeau should
warrant a full investigation and resignation from office. Yet Chris
Bittle has not made any comment on such facts, rather he stood behind
his master nodding away. This is the same individual who is asking
the people of St. Catharines to vote for him.

Whether
it is Chris Bittle or any other Liberal MP the corruption stench
smears them all. The Clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Shugart invoked
cabinet confidence to block the RCMP from talking to people in their
attempt to investigate the SNC-Lavalin situation. The Prime Minister
claimed he had no role in that decision, yet the PM can waive the
issue of cabinet confidence. Since Trudeau makes no apology and if in
his words this was merely a mistake then why block access to the RCMP
to speak freely to people? Trudeau also backed the blocking of
witnesses from speaking to the Ethics Commissioner and the refusal of
providing documents for Dion's investigation. So if Chris Bittle,
Liberal MP for St. Catharines, agrees with his master's
interpretation of SNC-Lavalin as a mistake then how does he explain
away the obstruction to any investigation?

Amongst
all the very alarming revelations relating to SNC-Lavalin, Justin
Trudeau was confronted with photos and even video of his antics in
blackface makeup. This was not a young Trudeau drunk or mindless in
university, but rather as a teacher and an adult. Putting on
blackface is an insult. His explanation was that he did not know how
offensive and insensitive it was. At the age of 29 and a school
teacher, coming from a family background like his he had no idea that
his actions were insulting? A more relevant question is, did he care?

Regardless
of how disgusting and unacceptable these actions were, they still do
not compare to the ramifications of Trudeau's obstruction of justice.
Sadly in a fashion the blackface incident had taken over the public
discussion. I watched ordinary citizens being interviewed on the
streets of Toronto regarding the blackface and several said or
commented on the fact that it was from the past and one gentleman had
said, “I have a past, you have past, we all do.”

That
sentiment is exactly what Trudeau is using to play down the
situation. He has claimed that he did not know better, that he did
not realise that his actions were an insult. Yet had our PM faced an
accusation by the MeToo bunch then the past would all of a sudden
matter very much. If Trudeau was accused, mind you only accused
without photos or video, of a butt slap, a hug or a supposedly
unwanted kiss then his career would be over.

Canadians
are being asked by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to disregard his
arrogance, his hypocrisy and his disrespect for the law and put him
back in office to lead this country. Every member of his Liberal
government is out there with their signs asking for your vote, whilst
they stand silent in support of the actions of their master, some
even willing to take part in the cover-up. Yet each one of them is
asking for your trust in this election.

Yes,
non-elected individuals within the Liberal Party machine had been
involved in the obstruction of justice with Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau, but it is the elected who are at Canadian doorsteps asking
for our vote of trust, our vote of confidence. Prime Minister Trudeau
constantly pushes the fact he stood up for Canadian jobs, yet he has
never said how many jobs may have been at risk. No Liberal MP has
come forward to clarify how many jobs they saved by breaking the law.
One has to remember that SNC-Lavalin is a Montreal based company and
the PM's riding is Papineau.

In
the latest debate, October 7th 2019, Trudeau said that the
Globe & Mail had published false allegations when they broke the
scandal about the SNC-Lavalin affair. Standing in front of Canadian
voters Justin Trudeau lied and accused journalists of presenting
false allegations. How can we vote for Justin Trudeau, how can we
vote for any of the Liberal candidates?

It
is an election where Canadians have to vote for what are the true
values of this country. No promises made by candidates matter, and we
know most of them will not be honoured anyhow. No claims of
accomplishments matter. The fact that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
stood before the people of Canada and in his arrogance lied about the
most alarming scandal in Canadian history and about his personal
involvement is what we should vote on.

Chris
Bittle, Liberal MP for St. Catharines has been given an opportunity
to provide a comment, to answer questions relating to the SNC-Lavalin
scandal. An email was sent to his parliamentary office and another to
his campaign office. In addition, to the two emails, a message was
posted with the questions on his Facebook fan page, which was seen on
Saturday, October 12th at 7:22. Regardless of how many
attempts were made to obtain comment from Liberal MP Chris Bittle, no
response has been provided. I guess 'ask me anything' notion in this
candidate has conditions on what is asked. Perhaps the same applies
to all Liberal candidates in this election.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Debbie
Zimmerman is a well-known individual around the Niagara area and she
has worked hard at trying to remain so. She is seen popping up at the
Roundtable for CKTB, at the Niagara District Council of Women, or
making speeches at A Better Niagara, a non-profit citizens group with
executive director Ed Smith. From time to time you may see a letter
to the editor published by Ms. Zimmerman. Her curriculum vitae can be
considered fairly impressive: from 1989 to 2014 she represented
Grimsby on Niagara Regional Council, and for two terms, 1997 through
to 2003, as Regional Chair. Currently, she is the CEO of the Grape
Growers of Ontario. In addition to these impressive achievements
Debbie Zimmerman might be called a SLAPPer.

Today
most have heard the term SLAPP suits or the Strategic Lawsuit
Against Public Participation. It is a weapon used to shut down public
discussion on matters of public interest by those usually who fear
the truth. Often it is journalists and publishers who find themselves
slammed with SLAPP suits to shut down and withdraw any article which
raises uncomfortable questions or uncovers information which is
preferred to remain in a closet.

The
Ontario government passed the Protection of Public Participation Act
in 2015. This was an attempt to help defendants of these lawsuits to
seek to have those actions dismissed in a relatively expedient and
less expensive manner. Sadly the operative word though is
“relatively,” as the cost of any legal action is extremely high.
Journalists working in the traditional hemisphere of publishing
giants are protected by their publishers. They can now argue a new
defense called “responsible communication” provided by the
Supreme Court of Canada in two rulings in 2008 and 2009, WIC Radio
Ltd. v Simpson and Grant v Torstar Corp.

Yet
the threat of a lawsuit still is a difficult and a daunting issue to
deal with, even with a publisher at one's back with deep pockets.
Winning a lawsuit such as this only brings potential relief for legal
costs and nothing else. The plaintiff who files the SLAPP suit faces
no other consequences for their allegations. So the independent
journalist, the blogger, faces a greater risk when slammed with a
lawsuit. Whether mainstream journalists like it or not it is a fact
that serious bloggers or independent journalists are providing real
news and sometimes news that the mainstream scribes decide to censor.
As such these individuals are at a greater risk to the threat of a
SLAPP suit.

One
independent journalist, Jessie Brown, who had established CANADALAND
in 2013, a news site and podcast breaking stories that traditional or
mainstream journalists would not, understands the looming threat of
SLAPP suits. In an interview with Columbia Journalism Review,
('Jessie Brown punctures Canada's media bubble', by Simon Liem
Jan/Feb 2015), Jessie Brown spoke of a decision he had to make
whether to publish or not. Brown had been given information by an
anonymous source alleging that CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi had been
using his fame to lure and sexually assault women. Without hesitation
Brown knew that if he published what he had uncovered he would be
sued and “characterized as a crackpot blogger.” Rather than risk
a crippling lawsuit Jessie Brown took all his information to Keven
Donovan a leading investigative journalist with The Toronto Star.
Eventually, an article by Brown and Donovan regarding Ghomeshi was
published, and the rest is history. There was an ensuing trial and in
2016 Ghomeshi was acquitted of five of the charges and he signed a
peace bond and aplogised to his accuser on the sixth. Jessie Brown
knew what a SLAPP suit would do to him, his family and the story
itself.

As
publisher and journalist of my website, Mayorgate, I have on several
occasions broken stories that local media refused to do. I have also
often spoken loudly against the self-imposed censorship of news by
the only real newspaper in this town, the St. Catharines Standard.
Granted there is Niagara This Week, a paper which is delivered
free to homes once a week, but the real news is expected to be
provided by The Standard. Simply put the public has the
absolute right to know what is happening in their community from a
free and unbiased press, and that is a cornerstone to a true
democracy. Mayorgate's goal is to provide news, information, and
commentary; to stimulate discussion and questions without allegiance
to anyone's policies or agenda.

Rumours
had been floating of an alleged affair between the Mayor of St.
Catharines at the time, Brian McMullan and Regional Councillor Debbie
Zimmerman. As rumors are often unverifiable Mayorgate avoided paying
attention, until in early 2014 a brown paper envelope was left at my
work station whilst I was at lunch. The contents of this envelope
were a shock to read. It was a copy of the divorce papers filed by
Patricia Ruth McMullan, the now ex-wife of Mayor Brian McMullan.

What
were rumours now found absolute and undeniable substance in legal
fact as per filed court papers. The questions this raised were
enormous. Both Brian McMullan as Mayor and Councillor Zimmerman sat
on regional council, just the issue of conflict of interest was
alarming. Reading those divorce papers and the allegations by Mrs.
McMullan raised even more dangerously alarming questions.

I
published an article titled 'Degradation of Public Office' on May
19th 2014. In early June a Notice of Action in the form of
a letter, dated June 2nd, 2014 from Sack Goldblatt Mitchell
LLP, signed by Jordan Goldblatt on behalf of his client Debbie
Zimmerman was received. This is where I should clarify what I meant
as being a SLAPPer. It was never anything so gauche or kinky as
slapping literally. Debbie Zimmerman now joined the myriad of
individuals who find the need to remove the public's ability to know
the truth and to discuss or question events. This was news, real news
and without a doubt of public interest. This action was simply
designed to threaten, harass and intimidate so that the article was
removed and an apology provided to Debbie Zimmerman. Though it was no
ordinary threat or accusation of defamation, it went further to
threaten with a Criminal Code complaint under S. 298.

The
Criminal Code of Canada under s. 298(1) – Defamatory Libel states,
“A defamatory libel is a matter published, without lawful
justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of
any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that
is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is
published.” Further as s. 300 – Punishment of Libel know to be
false, states, “Everyone who publishes a defamatory libel that he
knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”

Debbie
Zimmerman threatened me with potential imprisonment for raising
questions that any reasonable individual would have a right to ask.
These questions were not based on rumours but on court-filed
documents. This made me wonder if I was in Egypt or Saudi Arabia and
Zimmerman was a princess. The threat in writing was followed by a
Statement of Claim, to which I responded with a Statement of Defense,
and an article on Mayorgate, not an apology.

Mayorgate's
article 'Debbie Zimmerman Attacks Mayorgate' made the threat public.
After the claim by Zimmerman and my defence were filed the following
five years remained silent. There was no exchange of affidavits of
documents, no discoveries or court dates for trial. Silence remained
until the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sent me an Order
Dismissing Action for Delay dated the 11th of June 2019.

Threat
of potential imprisonment hung over me for five years. The Protection
of Public Participation Act as useful as taking an aspirin for a
broken leg. Zimmerman's fear of the truth or public questioning
reached a crescendo only to fizzle out like a pricked balloon. To
add, Zimmerman's five years of silence after the commencement of
legal action was also The Standard's censorship of the news.

Much
later the Standard did publish a letter to the editor written by
Debbie Zimmerman which begins with “Abraham Lincoln once compared
elections to a fire.” One might think this a slightly ambiguous
phrase possibly, or maybe President Lincoln said more to put it into
context? Maybe Zimmerman extracted her shortened version from these
words by Abraham Lincoln; “Elections belong to the people. It's
their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and
burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their
blisters.” No ambiguity here, none at all. Whatever quote she got
it from she continues in her letter to say that women in politics
“faced a heightened scrutiny our male counterparts did not,” and
finished “women in politics became more effective leaders because
the electorate was so closely scrutinizing who we were.”

Zimmerman's
letter was published on October 17th, 2018 and a nagging
question remains, is it the scrutiny or the fire that she fears? That
fear took another step towards the sublime by naming a local activist
Fred Bracken as a co-defendant in her legal claim against me. It
appeared that Mr. Bracken besides posting a comment on my article, as
anyone may, had tweeted several times questioning the alleged affair,
and linked my article to it. Now anyone in Canada for that matter,
even China, has the legal right to read any article that I had
written and if they wish attach it anywhere. As long as they don't
claim they wrote it. Zimmerman decided that through his actions Mr.
Bracken had republished my Mayorgate article.

Naming
Mr. Bracken as a co-defendant to me, especially as I had no
association with him whatsoever, had me wonder what kind of fixation
did Zimmerman have on him? Really it was not an odd question as
Maryanne Firth of The Standard gave it more credence with her
article, 'Trespass notice ruled a charter violation' published
November 26th, 2015. Maryanne Firth writes, “In her
affidavit Zimmerman alleged Bracken also made unfounded allegations
regarding her personal life,” Firth further claims that court
documents allege that Bracken was standing in the public gallery and
“asked Zimmerman why she was suing him personally because of an
article he had written about her.”

Bracken
had not written any article about Zimmerman and was being sued as a
co-defendant in my lawsuit as already explained. Who gave this
information to Maryanne Firth of The Standard? Firth eludes to
some “court documents” but what does she mean? Was it the
lawsuit? Was it a simple empty affidavit? Exactly what was Maryanne
Firth saying here? People rely on clarity from a newspaper, facts
that are verifiable, something tangible. All of that may be true, but
the Standard was the newspaper that ensured not a word of the
alleged affair or divorce of former Mayor Brian McMullan reached the
public's ears. If that's not censorship than someone please explain
what is the English meaning of the word.

Before
any yelping squeezes from the Standard's editors or 'journos'
for my comments, I will impart more information. I interviewed
Patricia McMullan, the ex-Mrs. Brian McMullan, in a Tim Hortons in
Thorold with a witness present. This interview took place on the 9th
of January 2016, lasting one hour, 54 minutes and 33 seconds. How am
I so precise? The interview was recorded. Patricia McMullan provided
some disturbing information, and one thing that she said was that she
went to see Doug Herod of The Standard. Doug always thought he
was clever or funny in his style of commentary, but here he listened
to all Patricia McMullan had to say, looked at all she had brought
him and then said, there was nothing he could do. These were the
words of the ex-Mrs. McMullan to me.

Debbie
Zimmerman's panic or desire to shut down any public comment
apparently still exists today. On May of 2019 something popped up on
Twitter. The handle was @HarajukuNiagara – Niagara4Now, and the
tweet read: “Grant's claim to fame: an award for “investigative
journalism” err publishing illegally supplied closed session info.
Debbie's claim to fame? Turner? Expensing hotel bills to taxpayers
for a lover's tryst? #sad #nobailout.” This tweet had Zimmerman
tagged.

Within
a very short time Niagara4Now's tweet was removed and was not seen
again, and under the handle @HarajukuNiagara the account had been
renamed HND. Now these are only presumptions and who knows what is
fact here. Is the Grant referred to Grant Lafleche of the Standard?
Did Grant LaFleche threaten the mysterious Niagara4Now? Or was the
Debbie referred to in the tweet Debbie Zimmerman? What hotel bills
could have been “expensing” to taxpayers? There is a tag
@dzimmermangrap1, is that a possible clue? Since Niagara4Now has
disappeared was he or she threatened by Debbie Zimmerman just like I
was? Questions without answers, or at least none that Debbie
Zimmerman will provide if asked.

Zimmerman
through her lawyer Jordan Goldblatt of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
issued, served and filed a threat through the courts. Zimmerman used
the justice system as her personal threat tool she pulled out of her
handbag, as she might a stick of lipstick. I did not aplogise. I
wanted to go into court. I wanted to gather all the evidence needed
to defend myself against Debbie Zimmerman's allegations and threats.
Zimmerman decided to let the court dismiss her action after five
years. Now the question is, does our justice system provide
consequences for such intentional threats?

Zimmerman
paraphrases President Lincoln but I prefer this quote from Marie
Henein, (Senior partner at Henein Hutchinson LLP), a very well known
Canadian lawyer when she appeared at IdeaCity's annual conference in
June 2019. Ms. Henein said: “That's what its about, all under the
guise that this, an elected official is the true voice of the people.
That's a scam, friends, a complete and utter scam, snake oil.”

Sunday, October 14, 2018

Public housing struggles to meet the needs of the community in every part of Canada. In the Niagara Region the Niagara Regional Housing Authority, NRH, oversees this task. The NRH is an arm of the Regional Municipality of Niagara even though it operates as an authority with its own board of directors. Funding for the NRH is primarily provided by the Niagara Region at approximately 60%, and both provincial and federal governments provide some 17% with a balance coming from its own operations through rents. At the end of the day 80% of the NRH operating budget is public money; taxpayers' dollars.

The NRH mission statement as read on its website claims “to expand opportunities that make affordable housing an integral part of building healthy and sustainable communities in Niagara.” Its strategic plan for 2013-2016 states that the “NRH demonstrates our commitment to this vision and to Regional Council's focus on Niagara as a healthy community, that supports a safe, healthy, diverse culturally rich community where people of all ages and incomes enjoy a high quality of life.”

Seniors' residences comprise approximately 45% of the public housing the NRH oversees, some they own and operate but the majority are semi-private and are funded by the NRH. Staff at the NRH whether management or not are public employees paid by the public purse. So an authority such as the NRH funded by the taxpayers' dollars would be expected to be answerable to public scrutiny, and to be diligent in overseeing its responsibility in shepherding public money. Well, in theory, yes, in practice it has left serious and alarming questions needing answers.

The Paderewski Society Home in St. Catharines is one such semi-private seniors home. It's life began as a vision of one man, Leopold Skorski, and is a registered non-profit society with a set of by-laws and an elected volunteer board of directors. Although it is a registered non-profit organisation its operational funding is entirely provided by Niagara Regional Housing, which is public money. Much as been written on this website relating to the Paderewski, with the most recent article detailing the trial completed late 2017.

As members of a society, we are aware that if we unlawfully take something that does not belong to us we will face an investigation and consequences. In the case of the Paderewski, a Superior Court justice said in his decision that the Purchasing and Tendering Policy had been breached. That same justice said the by-laws of the Society had been breached and the policies of the NRH. He called this very suspicious. A Forensic Auditor, Robert Forsyth, stated under oath fraud had been committed. Should this not be enough for a full police investigation and the guilty face consequences? Public money had been stolen and the NRH fully aware of this fact and nothing has happened.

After the trial, emails were sent to Niagara Regional Chair Alan Caslin and the current Chair of the NRH, Henry D'Angela advising them of the Superior Court's Justice decision and the testimony of Auditor Robert Forsyth. Remember the NRH is predominately funded by Niagara Region's tax dollars. Chair Alan Caslin has never responded, Chair of NRH Henry D'Angela on July 10th 2018 confirmed by email that he had forwarded the concerns regarding fraud to staff. His email had two names which he had c.c'd: Donna Woiceshyn, CEO and Shelly Upton. On July 12th 2018, Shelly Upton, Manager Housing Programs responded stating: “I have had an opportunity to review the Superior Court decision attached to your email as well as our files and records involving the Paderewski Society Home.” She continued that the NRH “has investigated allegations of improper spending at Paderewski on several occasions since 2009. Following each investigation NRH wrote to the Board of Directors of Paderewski confirming that no financial irregularities had been found.” Shelly Upton finished by saying that NRH “considers the complaint regarding the purchasing and tendering processes related to the fencing installed in 2011 closed.” Chair D'Angela referred to Shelly Upton July 10th at 1:13 pm., Shelly Upton closed the files July 12 at 7:20 pm. This had to have been a truly exhaustive review of records and files, although Upton did not surprise anyone.

Regional Chair Caslin's lack of interest in the fraud of public money is not so surprising with all he has had hang over him. First, there was the information of Alan Caslin's personal association with Justice Edwards who had heard a Motion filed against the Niagara Region, and a ruling in favour of the Region. Then there was the feeding frenzy by regional councillors in grabbing personal property belonging to a journalist and a private citizen. In this case, the Ombudsman slammed the Region after its investigation. Finally, there is the whole question of the hiring of Region's CEO Carmen D'Angelo. Yet Caslin and the NRH not caring about fraud is hard to accept, unless one reviews evidence put forward during the trial.

Entered into public record were minutes of the Paderewski Society Home board meeting on November 13th 2013. Present at the meeting was Lorraine Small, a manager with the NRH, and a manager who had supposedly looked into allegations of financial irregularities. Ms. Small advised the Board in November of 2013 to take legal action against Leopold Skorski to shut him up and stop him from asking any more questions. Lorraine Small is a public employee, paid with public money yet how did she have the legal right to provide such advice? Legal action was taken by the Board of the Paderewski against Leopold Skorski, Alexander Davidoff and Alexandra Davidoff in February of 2014.

Further testimony was provided by Stella Fensom, building manager at the Paderewski during the trial in 2017 who is the center of the questions of fraud, that Laura Beckwith another manager at the NRH at the time, handed over a copy of a letter written to the RHRA by defendant Alexander Davidoff. The Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority is a provincial body established to assist seniors in many facets of their lives. This provincial authority sent a copy of the letter they received to the NRH so that they look into the issues raised. Under no circumstances was anyone at the NRH permitted by law to provide a copy of the letter to a private non-government body who they advised to take legal action to silence questions being asked. Chair of the NRH at the time, Shirley Cordiner admitted to sharing the letter and then said she ordered all files to be deleted. Does that smell a little of the provincial Liberals and McGuinty? Paderewski lawyer at the time, Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard, refers to the illegally obtained letter in her Notice of Action dated February 27th 2014.

Shirley Cordiner, former NRH Chair went further writing a letter dated December 18th 2013 in which she stated that all the allegations made, in particular relating to two contracts: the Gale Force Fencing and Glen Paul, who had been investigated and no irregularities found. Both the judge at trial in 2017 and the Forensic Auditor Robert Forsyth found massive irregularities. Robert Forsyth called it fraud and Justice Henderson called it very suspicious and a breach of the Purchasing & Tendering Policy.

The timeline in all of these actions by the NRH staff is of crucial legal importance and raises the possibility of questions of complicity in the fraud. Can there be another explanation and can there be an explanation of why no investigation has been conducted of the fraud? Niagara regional staff had become involved directly in a legal action by a third party who is financed by public money. This same third party was improperly investigated by the NRH staff for fraud.

Questions relating to the absolute lack of interest in fraud of public money do not stop with the NRH or the regional government of Niagara. Malte von Anrep, Q.C, with Lancaster, Brooks and Welch LLP, and the lawyer for the Paderewski founder, Leo Skorski, wrote Mayor Walter Sendzik of St. Catharines on May 11th 2018. Mayor Sendzik did not bother to reply.

Chris Bittle is the federal representative for the Trudeau Liberals in St. Catharines, and a formerlawyer with Lancaster, Brooks and Welch. An email was sent July 3rd 2018, stating out the details of the fraud and offering to make available all the legal documents. Niagara Regional Housing is in part funded by the federal government, MP Chris Bittle pops his face into photo-ops, and more importantly, Chris Bittle does not shy from public comment about local issues. Several months ago when a public storm broke in relation to a regional councillor from Niagara, MP Bittle played out his attack against the councillor publicly. That issue had nothing to do with a federal politician. Now he is silent, why?

The provincial elections swept the Liberals out of Queens' Park and brought forward two local former St. Catharines councillors into the glamour of provincial politics. Both Jeff Burch and Jenny Stevens were Merritton Ward Councillors and both have been elected as NDP representatives, and both have been featured in articles in Mayorgate.

Jeff Burch as a councillor found himself under investigation by Integrity Commissioner Suzanne Craig for lying to City Council. Craig was not able to complete her investigation but in her final report she clearly stated that she had not cleared Jeff Burch of these very serious allegations. Today Burch struts as the NDP Municipal Affairs Critic and on August 7th 2018 an email was sent to him relating to the fraud with a link to Justice Henderson's decision. The NDP, the New Democratic Party, which attacks the sitting Conservative government of Doug Ford has shown no care at all for fraud of the public purse. Burch has not responded to the email.

Fellow NDP representative Jenny Stevens, like Burch, was a former St. Catharines councillor, and in the 2010 municipal elections claimed to go out at night to fix plumbing for constituents. Jenny Stevens is also rather famous for her telephone answering machine message where she confirmed that the former Mayor of St. Catharines, Brian McMullan had fixed a fine for a resident. Stevens is Veterans Legions, and Military Affairs Critic and like compadre Burch she manages to pop out of her seat now and again to poke at the Ford government. She also received an email on August 7th 2018, and like Burch, Stevens ignored everything. The NDP is the official opposition in Ontario and it has much to say about the government, yet the NDP has shown that public money is not an issue of concern.

As a last resort, a letter was sent to Premier Doug Ford with the Justice Henderson Ruling and Robert Forsyth Testimony. Little expectation remained as previously both the NDP's Jeff Burch and Jenny Stevens, and the Federal Liberals through Chris Bittle ignored this very serious situation. A letter arrived dated September 17th 2018 signed by MPP Steve Clark, the Minister for Municipal Affairs. Minister Clark begins his letter with, “Premier Doug Ford has forwarded to me your letter regarding your concerns with the Niagara Regional Housing Authority.” Premier Ford had not ignored the material sent to him and through his minister, Steve Clark provided guidance and confirmation for the next steps to be taken.

It is difficult to understand how fraud by a non-profit seniors' housing provider be ignored, particularly when identified by a Superior Court Justice and a Forensic Auditor. The local newspapers The Standard, Niagara this Week and its editors have decided to censor all information relating to this, local regional government and its housing authority have closed their files, provincial opposition and the federal representative simply ignore everything; yet the Charter of Rights guarantees equality of law and this cannot be permitted to simply fade. Answers are demanded to serious questions and they need to be sought out.

Friday, July 6, 2018

The Paderewski Society Home for seniors in St. Catharines, Ontario, is a nicely kept residence where seniors from Polish background can spend their twilight years. It was the dream of one man, Mr. Leo Skorski, a Polish immigrant to Canada, who worked hard and did well for his family. Leo wanted to find a way to give back to the community which gave him and his family so much. As a result, the Paderewski Society Home came to life providing a clean well run seniors residence.

Today Leo Skorski, a man in his early 90's, sharp and full of life as ever, continues a fight which began in February of 2014. After the Paderewski was built and all the legalities completed Skorski served as the Board President for several years, transferring his uncompromising integrity and honesty from his personal and business life to the running of the seniors home. Eventually, Skorski became a resident at the Home and as the by-laws of the Home required, he had to step down from his position as the President of the Board of Directors.Although he stepped down as president he had not relinquished his concerns as to how the Home was run.

By 2009 the questions surrounding the actions of the Board of Directors of the Paderewski and the building manager Stella Fensom had grown immensely for Skorski, he enlisted the help of friend and Queen's Council, Mr. Malte von Anrep from the law firm of Lancaster, Brooks and Welch to find satisfactory answers. For some five years, Malte von Anrep on behalf of his friend and client made attempts to find satisfactory answers to the serious questions raised. The solicitor representing the Paderewski, Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP, provided responses that to Skorski seemed ambiguous at best. Numerous attempts at communication with Niagara Regional Housing who funds over 90% of the operating budget of the Paderewski Society Home equally proved fruitless to Malte von Anrep and Leo Skorski.

Finally, in late 2013 Skorski was introduced to me, publisher of Mayorgate by Niagara Regional Councillor Andy Petrowski. Interviews with Leo Skorski and his lawyer Malte von Anrep, attempts at obtaining comment from Paderewski Building Manager, Stella Fensom which had been left unanswered, reviewing dozens of documents including responses by Niagara Regional Housing; all provided the basis for an article. Prior to publishing, I had contacted the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority – a provincial body – relating to matters affecting seniors and the operation of seniors' residences. In addition to the RHRA, I contacted the Minister for Seniors Affairs seeking advice on the issues raised by Leo Skorski.

An article titled, 'Seniors Languish in Intimidation' was published in late January 2014. February saw three Notice of Action documents prepared and served by lawyer, Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard LLP claiming defamation. The three recipients were: Leo Skorski, Alexandra Davidoff, daughter of Alexander Davidoff, and Alexander Davidoff, publisher of Mayorgate. It was no surprise that questions raised in the article by Leo Skorski needed to be silenced but Alexandra Davidoff had no connection to the article. Her only connection to this website – Mayorgate – was to produce as an artist on occasion caricatures to articles. This was a clear attempt at intimidation and nothing else.

Once the Notice of Action was delivered the games began and continued for over three and a half years. Paderewski's lawyer, Rachel Slingerland, attempted to stall or stop a forensic audit from being conducted, she attempted to refuse to have Paderewski Board President, Sabina Glowacki from being questioned under the Examination procedure. Most notable of all was the refusal by Rachel Slingerland to examine Alexandra Davidoff as part of the Examination for Discovery process. And the refusal was clear, Slingerland knew that no evidence existed against Alexandra Davidoff.

Then in 2017, Rachel Slingerland, of Martens Lingard LLP walked away from the Paderewski as clients and a new lawyer took over the baton. Taking over the carnival was lawyer Zijad Saskin of Broderick and Partners LLP. A trial date was finally set and the trial judge was Justice J.R. Henderson.

It was a trial that lasted nine days, beginning on July 31st 2017 with testimony provided by President of the Board Sabina Glowacki, Board Member Tony Sotola, Building Manager Stella Fensom and Forensic Auditor Robert Forsyth. At question was the issue of Defamation and did the defendants harm the reputation of the Paderewski Society Home by making comments that were absolutely untrue in the article published on Mayorgate.

Defamation Law has changed dramatically since the Supreme Court decision in Grant v. Torstar Corp, 2009. Until this decision, the protection of reputation was the key to defamation action. Now a new defense had been brought forward that of responsible communication about matters of public interest.

A trial is pretty much like a game, and that is not said with any disrespect for the law or our system of justice; Law and its administration is a key component to a democratic society, still, the analogy presented is hard to ignore. The key players are the lawyers who do not play for any permanent team, their companies are nothing more than agents. Their mantra is in the best interest of the client, and as long as they are paid that is apparently the only rulebook.

In this case, the best interest of the client involved the malicious and vexatious prosecution of an individual even when both lawyers were fully aware that no evidence existed. Rachel Slingerland of Martens Lingard issued her Notice of Action in February 2014 and was immediately told that the defendant, Alexandra Davidoff, had no involvement with the Mayorgate website or the articles written and published. Rachel Slingerland had to have a motive for this act, after all, she is supposedly university trained and had passed the Bar.

Rachel Slingerland left the firm Martens Lingard and another lawyer from Broderick & Partners LLP, Zijad Saskin took over the file as the Paderewski lawyer. Saskin in taking the file would have had to review everything and would be fully aware that the action against one of the defendants was nothing more than intimidation but apparently the law mattered little to Zijad Saskin. On August 3rd 2017 the morning of the fourth day of the trial Justice J.R. Henderson said, “First of all, with respect to the Plaintiff's case against Alexandra Davidoff, in my view, there is no evidence that has been presented by the Plaintiff at this trial that would justify the claim against this defendant. Therefore the action against Alexandra Davidoff is dismissed.” (as per official transcript by Carol A. MacLean, Certified Court Transcriptionist).

Moments prior to dismissing the action Justice J.R. Henderson said, “I certainly have a question as to the evidence against Miss Davidoff,” to which Zijad Saskin representing the Paderewski Society Home responded. “As, I mean, as far as I'm concerned Your Honour, I, I would agree with your finding that there is no evidence against Miss Davidoff and as far as I am concerned, I would consent to an order dismissing the action against Miss Davidoff.” (from trial transcript by Carol A. MacLean, Certified Court Transcriptionist).

The trial continued with a judgment by Justice J.R. Henderson provided on the 3rd of November 2017.After reading the reasoning for judgment one can't help but burst into a rendition of the well-known song by Meatloaf, “Two Out of Three Aint Bad.” In this case, the plaintiff is a non-profit corporation, run by a volunteer board of directors, and “funding for the operation comes from NRH,” (page 3, paragraph 11, Justice J.R. Henderson, Reasons for Judgment – Introduction). Simply put the plaintiff, Paderewski Society Home, is a non-profit organisation solely funded by public money granted through a regional government body, the Niagara Regional Housing Authority.

At trial were three defendants: first was Leopold Skorski, a retired and successful businessman, who came up with the concept of a seniors' home for individuals of Polish heritage. He raised the financing, completed all the government red tape and built the Paderewski. He then served as the first president of the Board from its opening in 1991 to July 2007. Defendant Alexander Davidoff, the publisher of Mayorgate, interviewed Leo Skorski, then his lawyer Malte von Anrep, Q.C., of Lancaster, Brooks & Welch, gathered documents from various sources particularly the NRH and the plaintiff's legal representative. The third defendant; Alexandra Davidoff, had the action dismissed against her by Justice Henderson.

Skorski raised a number of questions about the monthly financial statements, tenant concerns, and the operation of the Paderewski Home. He enlisted the aid of Malte von Anrep, Q.C., and took these concerns to Niagara Regional Housing. At best he saw the responses he got as inadequate, Skorski then turned to Mayorgate in an attempt to bring public attention to the serious issues he felt were left unanswered. Justice Henderson at paragraph 6 in his decision states, “The Mayorgate article is the essence of the complaint in this action.”

Defamation Law is based on the principle that the plaintiff must prove that the words were reasonably capable of a meaning that can injure a plaintiff's reputation, and Justice Henderson says as much in paragraph 20 of his decision. At paragraph 147, Justice J.R. Henderson states: “I must consider the nature of the reputation that has been lost. In my view, given the financial irregularities, the Board's mishandling of Skorski's complaints, and the Board's questionable conduct at the AGM, the reputation of the Paderewski Home has been tarnished by its own actions. This was not a pristine well-run organisation at the time of the publication of the Mayorgate article.”

Further at paragraph 146, Justice Henderson writes, “I must look at the conduct of the plaintiff. In my view, Skorski was right to confront the Board about financial irregularities, but the Board mishandled and ignored his complaints. If the Board had reasonably considered Skorski's criticism, these matters may not have escalated to the point of the Mayorgate article. That is, Skorski went to the media only after his criticisms, some of which were accurate, had been ignored by the Board and the public authority.”

Then at paragraph 144, Justice Henderson writes, “given that there is public funding of the Paderewski Home, the allegations of tenant abuse may affect the plaintiff's source of public funds, and may also affect its reputation in the community to the extent that possible private fundraising may be suppressed.” What private fundraising is Justice Henderson eluding to when at paragraph 11 he confirms that the funding of the operation is provided by Niagara Regional Housing? At paragraph 146 he writes that Skorski had been ignored by public authorities, and by “public authorities” he meant the NRH, (Niagara Regional Housing). Several exhibits had been provided at trial, such as the letter from NRH Chair Shirley Cordiner where supposedly NRH staff conducted investigations and found nothing wrong at the Paderewski. The most alarming of all was a copy of the Paderewski Home Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting of November 13th 2013, where it states, “Ms. L. Small from NRH visited the office on November 6, 2013” and then on page two, “Ms. Small suggested that the board again consider taking legal action against Mr. L. Skorski for harassment.”

Paderewski Society Home Minutes, November 13, 2013, part of trial exhibit #3, at tab L and on public record

There is a great deal more to question in the Justice Henderson decision. At trial, evidence had been provided by Forensic Auditor Robert Forsyth who had conducted an audit of the Paderewski Home. Forsyth testified that he felt on a balance of probabilities that there had been civil fraud, and in the opening to paragraph 66 Justice Henderson writes, “I specifically accept Forsyth's opinion that the Board violated its own internal Purchasing and Tendering Policy (PTP) in relation to the GFC contract.”

Through paragraphs 68 to 72 Justice Henderson discusses the GFC contract that spiraled to some $30,000. At paragraph 69 Justice Henderson writes, “I agree with Forsyth that this transaction is very suspicious.” Then further, “I also agree that the acceptance of the original GFC repair bid constitutes a violation of the plaintiff's own PTP.”At paragraph 70, “This again is a violation of the PTP of the plaintiff.” then again in paragraph 71, “Again the Board violated the plaintiff's own PTP” and finally paragraph 72, “Accordingly, I find the plaintiff violated its own internal regulations and failed to operate as directed by the NRH, with respect to the GFC contract.”

Following discussions of the GFC contract, Justice Henderson moved to the issues of Glen Paul, “the manager's carpenter”. In paragraphs 76 to 86 Justice Henderson dissects the contract which amounted to over $10,000. He begins writing again, “This is a clear violation of the PTP” at paragraph 76, then he says that Stella Fensom, the building manager, claimed that the privacy screen contract was a custom job and could only be done by Paul, to which Justice Henderson adds, “but those reasons were never recorded, and in fact are clearly untrue.” Further at paragraph 78, Justice Henderson writes that Fensom “deviated from the proper rules in so many ways, and then failed to disclose that she had a connection to the contractor is extremely suspicious.”

Justice Henderson raises the fact that the directives of the NRH were violated by Stella Fensom and the Board of the plaintiff in paragraphs 79 and 80. In paragraph 81 he begins with, “there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the payment to Paul,” then he writes at paragraph 84, “Finally, and significantly, the entire Paul contract is suspect because Paul is the brother of Fensom's daughter-in-law. Moreover, despite questions from Skorski and from Forsyth during the investigation, Fensom denied that she had a family connection to Paul until shortly before the start of the trial. I accept Forsyth's view that the fact that Fensom deviated from the proper rules in so many ways, and then failed to disclose that she had a connection to the contractor is extremely suspicious.”

Justice Henderson states Forsyth testified that there had been civil fraud but that he did not accept Forsyth's ultimate conclusion that fraud occurred. He said, “the missing elements of civil fraud are the proof of a loss to the victim (plaintiff) and the benefit to the fraudster (Fensom).” It can be taken then that Justice Henderson saw the Board of the Paderewski as the possible victim and building manager Stella Fensom as the fraudster.

Robert Forsyth provided lengthy testimony at the trial, and on page 9 of the trial's transcript it reads: “A Supreme Court case, a judge summarized four elements of civil fraud. Here I'm going to use the words Paderewski and Ms. Fentom [sic], Fensom. So a false representation was made by Ms. Fensom or somebody else in, in Paderewski. Some knowledge of that, that representation being false was known to, they call them the defendant. The false representation caused someone to act and there was a loss.” The Supreme Court case Forsyth referred to was from Bruno Appliance and Hryniak. Further at page 40 of the transcript, Forsyth says, “As a civil expert, I can deal with what I'm given but I don't have the power to compel bank statements. I don't have the power to, to speak to all of the contractees and distant people. I could only speak to Ms. Fensom and the Board so I could not follow up on things that I might otherwise have done.” He continued in response to a question by Malte von Anrep, “What I had was consistently being told he was met at the Royal Canadian Legion. There was no connection. There had been no situation where they met socially other than I think it was at Cat's Caboose, and at other places. That, that's what I was given to understand. Well, now there's a connection, a connection that seemingly was denied. So, first of all, that tends to make me even more dubious of any explanations offered by Ms. Fensom. Secondly, if, as I understand it, Ms. Fensom's son was married to the sister of Paul, that in a way provides motivation. It supplies the missing link.”

Forsyth further said, “on the balance of probabilities, makes me conclude that there was fraud, using my earlier definition of fraud, where now – excuse for me for one second – for now I, I know that there's a false representation. I know that, that Ms. Fensom knew or ought to know that, that there is some facts, material facts that weren't there. Paderewski did the contract because of Ms. Fensom's providing the information and that there was a loss. So I have apparently all the elements of a civil fraud.”

Robert Forsyth has a Masters in Social Psychology, an MBA in Management Science. He is a Certified General Accountant, a CFI, and in 2000 was certified as a forensic investigator. Since 2003 all his work has been in forensic accounting. He has been involved in ninety investigations or consulting assignments either for the Government of Ontario Ministries or for various lawyers in private practice, and an expert witness in ten court or arbitration cases. Forsyth was contracted by Niagara Regional Housing to prepare and deliver seminars on fraud and ways to prevent it and how to audit and investigate for fraud. Justice Henderson did not accept Forsyth's conclusion on fraud at the Paderewski.

Justice Henderson would not accept the word fraud, he preferred to say that the transactions were very suspicious and that the PTPhad been breached. Then he turned his attention to the Annual General Meeting in his decision. Beginning with paragraph 92 through to 95 he dissects the By-Law of the plaintiff, the Paderewski, and the process that provides for the election of the Board. At paragraph 96 Justice Henderson says, “Accordingly, I accept that Skorski and his group had reason to believe that they were eligible to participate in the meeting, vote in the election, and run for office, provided they were not tenants of the Paderewski Home.” This has been said by Leo Skorski for several years and the facts he provided for the original article.

The conclusion to paragraph 96 was more of an eye-opener, “I do not make any finding as to whether the results of the 2013 election were valid, but I find that the decision by Glowacki to terminate the meeting, and prohibit Skorski and his group from participation was an irregularity in the process.” So once again Justice Henderson agrees with Skorski and now that's two out of three, and Meatloaf is about to sing... but wait, this is Justice Henderson.

In relation to potential tenant abuse or neglect, paragraph 97 shows where Justice Henderson was going. He writes, “The only tenant of Paderewski who testified at this trial was Skorski, and he testified that he did not live in fear at the Paderewski Home and that he had not been the subject of any abuse. Thus, any evidence of abuse of tenants by a Board member or by Fensom is hearsay evidence, and must be treated with caution.”

Hearsay evidence is tricky and when a judge makes such a statement it would be expected the statement is carried to both sides, here in this case, it did not appear to be by Justice Henderson. First, Skorski had fought for over ten years to bring the truth to the surface, and at age 91, he was threatened with eviction. Three main individuals: Mr. Janusz Zelichowski, Ms. Helen Cholawski and Mr. Dolbaczuk who spoke out and provided written statements, had all passed away before the trial had begun, others were hesitant to speak to an outsider.

Tony Sotola testified regarding the incident with tenant Zelichowski. At paragraph 104 Justice Henderson writes, “I find that Sotola did not do anything wrong to start the confrontation and that Zelichowski inappropriately responded by striking Sotola with his cane.” During his testimony Board Member Tony Sotola was asked by Malte von Anrep, “I'm not asking whether they convinced you to call the police or not, I'm saying to you, suggesting to you that nowhere in either your version of the events or Mr. Zelichowski's version of the, of the events, is there any mention of you being struck by a cane. Isn't that a fact?” Tony Sotola responded with, “That's a fact.”

In the end, Justice Henderson says at paragraph 116, “the statements in the Mayorgate article about tenant abuse and neglect are not substantially true,” and at 117 “I also find the statements in the Gestapo letter are not justified.” The meaning of the word substantially used by Justice Henderson implies that he saw some truth but not largely, mainly or greatly. Yet more alarming was the label Justice Henderson put on a plea for help from a 91-year-old for his fellow senior tenants.

Henderson is a Justice within the Canadian judicial system, a system built on the principles of the Charter of Rights. Canada does not accept any form of labelling in our society; be it on race, religion, or beliefs. Justice Henderson took that plea or help by seniors and labelled it “the Gestapo letter,” and then used that label eight times throughout his written judgment. Was it for effect or impact? In paragraph 6 Justice Henderson writes, “the plaintiff relies on one letter written by Skorski to NRH in early 2012, hereinafter called “the Gestapo letter”.” That statement by Justice Henderson is not “substantially” true as the letter is addressed to “Mr. Mayor, Mrs. Beckwith,” and its content primarily refers to the Mayor.

The mere connotation of the label “the Gestapo letter” brings to mind the horror of Nazi Germany, antisemitism and the most horrific abuse of human rights and murder. In the Statement of Claim by the plaintiff there is no mention of the letter at all. During trial the lawyer for the plaintiff, Zijad Saskin, referred to the letter and did not call it a “Gestapo letter.” Defendant Leo Skorski explained that many of the tenants are survivors of the Nazi occupation of Poland. He explained that it referred to in the sentence, “We have a genuine complaint and proof of the “Gestapo” style of treating helpless seniors,” actions taken by the Manager and a questionnaire circulated among tenants.

Out of the five paragraphs of this letter four begin with Mr. Mayor, and reading the letter there was no expression of anger or hatred which would be associated with such a label as Justice Henderson slapped on it. The letter finishes, “You have [You refers to Mrs. Beckwith of the NRH] the power to intervene in our situation and restore a healthy atmosphere and let us seniors live the rest of our lives in dignity and happiness.”

At the end of his decision Justice Henderson writes, “I find that Skorski in particular had good intentions” and “similarly, I find that Davidoff had good intentions as he believed that Skorski had raised issues of public concern.” The real crunch comes in paragraph 147 as Justice Henderson writes, “In my view given the Board's questionable conduct at the AGM, the reputation of the Paderewski Home has been tarnished by its own actions. This was not a pristine, well-run organisation at the time of publication of the Mayorgate article. I find that the unfounded complaints of tenant abuse reduced Paderewski's reputation, but other conduct by the plaintiff has also undermined its reputation.”

With such a conclusion defendant Leo Skorski who fought for well over ten years for the truth was asked for a comment, his response was: “I was very disappointed, because the opposite side was under oath did not tell the truth, regardless that I presented three written proofs and a forensic audit proof that fraud was committed, Justice was not served.” An opportunity for comment was provided to Skorski's lawyer, Malte von Anrep, who refused to respond. The lawyer for the plaintiff, Zijad Saskin was sent an email with a number of questions for his clients and an opportunity to provide comment on the proceedings completed before Justice Henderson. No response has been made available by the plaintiff lawyer Zijad Saskin, Stella Fensom nor by any member of the Paderewski Board of Directors.

Justice Henderson ruled in favour of the plaintiff and Meatloaf left the building with the lyrics of his song, 'Two Out of Three Aint Bad' in his hands. The ruling by Justice J.R. Henderson is under appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal and this saga has not found an end as yet.